GSA official claims the 5th

[rockota]

Originally Posted by RedPurdueYJ

The COTUS is not a list of rights we as citizens have.

It's a list of restrictions the government has.

agreed. and doesn't restrict the gov't on spending money, specifically.

either way. I win.

Again, I'm not saying I'm happy about it. I think the gov't has well abused the citizenry.

[RedPurdueYJ]

Originally Posted by rockota

agreed. and doesn't restrict the gov't on spending money, specifically.

either way. I win.

Again, I'm not saying I'm happy about it. I think the gov't has well abused the citizenry.

True. But a government hiding where the money is spent and wasting money really isn't a government by the people, for the people...is it?

[ironpig70]

Originally Posted by RedPurdueYJ

You keep using the excuse as they were just doing what their bosses said. That is an incredibly weak argument.

Yeah I could see an issue if a boss said find me some underage hookers and using the "I was following orders". But in this case the GSA hadthese conferences before. This was not the first. This was not the first to cost huge money. So to me this was not out of the ordinary. I can see where red flags would not be raised.


Not agreeing with it just showing how slowing building up becomes "normal". If the bill went from $100k to $1M then flags should go up. But when you go in small increments like 10-20% then it seems routine.

[Bubba Ray Boudreaux]

Originally Posted by RedPurdueYJ

We already do pick and choose. Military members do not have full, unrestricted 1st amendment rights. or 2nd or 4th either like in the civilian world

I do not have full, unrestricted 2nd amendment rights.

Originally Posted by RedPurdueYJ

Not overall, but when it comes to your work, absofuckinglutely.

I know you'll disagree with me, but wouldn't witholding testimony, whether it incriminates you or not, be putting your own interests above the publics? Wouldn't that be a direct contradiction of putting the public interests above your own? You are a public employee, correct?

And the same could be said about those in the private sector that have been accused of crimes against the public...................

[RedPurdueYJ]

Originally Posted by Bubba Ray Boudreaux

And the same could be said about those in the private sector that have been accused of crimes against the public...................

But people in the private sector didn't take an oath.

They also arn't paid by tax dollars.

[RedPurdueYJ]

Originally Posted by ironpig70

Yeah I could see an issue if a boss said find me some underage hookers and using the "I was following orders". But in this case the GSA hadthese conferences before. This was not the first. This was not the first to cost huge money. So to me this was not out of the ordinary. I can see where red flags would not be raised.


Not agreeing with it just showing how slowing building up becomes "normal". If the bill went from $100k to $1M then flags should go up. But when you go in small increments like 10-20% then it seems routine.

If big, taxpayer sponsored blowouts, and huge amounts of waste are routine for them, then they need to be gotten rid of. Huge amounts of waste and overspending should not be the norm for ANYONE involved in government.

[ironpig70]

Originally Posted by RedPurdueYJ

If big, taxpayer sponsored blowouts, and huge amounts of waste are routine for them, then they need to be gotten rid of. Huge amounts of waste and overspending should not be the norm for ANYONE involved in government.

Well thats where the fun begins.

What is waste and whats okay?


Do we put a dollar on it? Do we take a vote? How do we define waste?

While I agree we need to kill waste the GSA is just the tip and the amount they spent is change compared to thers and those others are seen as "nessecary"

[gipper]

Originally Posted by rockota

you think the executive branch would allow such shenanigans?

Good point. Campaign issue then. Side with taxpayers or
Theives?

[Bubba Ray Boudreaux]

Originally Posted by RedPurdueYJ

But people in the private sector didn't take an oath.

They also arn't paid by tax dollars.

So those on welfare and governmental retirees lose their 5th Amendment rights also?????????

[RedPurdueYJ]

Originally Posted by ironpig70

Well thats where the fun begins.

What is waste and whats okay?


Do we put a dollar on it? Do we take a vote? How do we define waste?

While I agree we need to kill waste the GSA is just the tip and the amount they spent is change compared to thers and those others are seen as "nessecary"

Really?

It's called common fucking sense.

You don't make the taxpayers pay for a fucking resort in Las Vegas and a shit load of ammenities when most taxpayers can't even afford a plane ticket to Vegas.

[pike2350]

Originally Posted by Bubba Ray Boudreaux

So those on welfare and governmental retirees lose their 5th Amendment rights also?????????

You seem to be missing the point where Purdue is saying when it deals with the job specifically...not all together.

I mean, how many here would be fine with cutting off welfare people if they claimed the 5th about using drugs to get their benefits? I don't see much, if any difference.

[RedPurdueYJ]

Originally Posted by Bubba Ray Boudreaux

So those on welfare and governmental retirees lose their 5th Amendment rights also?????????

People on welfare didn't take an oath.

Retirees, if they are being questioned about the work they have done, yes.

Are you just picking and choosing what to read out of my posts?

[ironpig70]

Originally Posted by RedPurdueYJ

Really?

It's called common fucking sense.

You don't make the taxpayers pay for a fucking resort in Las Vegas and a shit load of ammenities when most taxpayers can't even afford a plane ticket to Vegas.

So $800k on Vegas is out but $1 trillion for another carrier is okay??

Or several trillion on another war

You can see where this is going.

[ironpig70]

Originally Posted by pike2350

You seem to be missing the point where Purdue is saying when it deals with the job specifically...not all together.

I mean, how many here would be fine with cutting off welfare people if they claimed the 5th about using drugs to get their benefits? I don't see much, if any difference.

I would not be fine with it. It violates their rights. It ends up becoming a slippery slope which we shouldn't go down.

If we can take the 5th from people why can't we take the 1st,2nd,3rd, etc.

[wizard_Drd]

Originally Posted by RedPurdueYJ

People on welfare didn't take an oath.

Retirees, if they are being questioned about the work they have done, yes.

Are you just picking and choosing what to read out of my posts?

Just to be clear since I really don't know, is this the oath that you keep referring to?

http://www.opm.gov/constitution_initiative/oath.asp

Oath

I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.

5 U.S.C. §3331

[RedPurdueYJ]

Originally Posted by ironpig70

I would not be fine with it. It violates their rights. It ends up becoming a slippery slope which we shouldn't go down.

If we can take the 5th from people why can't we take the 1st,2nd,3rd, etc.

And you are contradicting yourself. it is not a slippery slope. I have shown several examples where public employees have restricted rights. No body has turned them into socialist zombies yet.

[pike2350]

Originally Posted by ironpig70

I would not be fine with it. It violates their rights. It ends up becoming a slippery slope which we shouldn't go down.

If we can take the 5th from people why can't we take the 1st,2nd,3rd, etc.

You seem to miss the point that we DO take some rights away from people dependent on certain circumstances.

Are you fine with any convicted felon being allowed to buy/own guns?

As stated, soldiers are already limited on their 1st.

It happens ALL THE TIME. I see no problem limiting the 5th on .gov employees when it pertains to the .gov's work.....anything beyond that I would agree....they can't take those rights away....but if it pertains to work, I can see the justification.

I also agree with you on slippery slope stuff.

However, I'll use favorite phrase to convey how it should work. "Don't like it, don't work for the .gov"

[rockota]

Originally Posted by ironpig70

I would not be fine with it. It violates their rights. It ends up becoming a slippery slope which we shouldn't go down.

If we can take the 5th from people why can't we take the 1st,2nd,3rd, etc.

yet you support violation of rights by any agency with a three letter acronym....

[RedPurdueYJ]

Originally Posted by ironpig70

So $800k on Vegas is out but $1 trillion for another carrier is okay??

Or several trillion on another war

You can see where this is going.

You are assuming I am okay with another war, or another carrier.

[RedPurdueYJ]

Originally Posted by wizard_Drd

Just to be clear since I really don't know, is this the oath that you keep referring to?

http://www.opm.gov/constitution_initiative/oath.asp

One of many.

[ironpig70]

Originally Posted by RedPurdueYJ

And you are contradicting yourself. it is not a slippery slope. I have shown several examples where public employees have restricted rights. No body has turned them into socialist zombies yet.

Originally Posted by pike2350

You seem to miss the point that we DO take some rights away from people dependent on certain circumstances.

Are you fine with any convicted felon being allowed to buy/own guns?

As stated, soldiers are already limited on their 1st.

It happens ALL THE TIME. I see no problem limiting the 5th on .gov employees when it pertains to the .gov's work.....anything beyond that I would agree....they can't take those rights away....but if it pertains to work, I can see the justification.

I also agree with you on slippery slope stuff.

However, I'll use favorite phrase to convey how it should work. "Don't like it, don't work for the .gov"

First a solider is on "duty" 24/7 so yes they have a limited first. But guess what when I am at work I also have limited first. So its not a govt thing its a work thing. It just happens soliders do not get off work.

And no I am not okay with a convicted felony not having guns. To me they did a crime, served their sentance and now are a citizen again. Way to many cases of bullshit cases.

And while I can see not allowing the 5th if it pertains to work but what happens when that work conduct was authorizes and due to testimony puts said person in jail?

Kinda scary ground.

[ironpig70]

Originally Posted by rockota

yet you support violation of rights by any agency with a three letter acronym....

I also support 2 and 4 letter agencies

And please show me where the TSA violates your rights

The COTUS says "unreasonable search" guess what its not "unreasonable"

Originally Posted by RedPurdueYJ

You are assuming I am okay with another war, or another carrier.

Didn't say you were. But the GSA is taking a beating on this and I would make a guess we waste more in a couple months in Iraq/Afganistan but for some reason nobody cares or sees it.

[RedPurdueYJ]

Originally Posted by ironpig70

And while I can see not allowing the 5th if it pertains to work but what happens when that work conduct was authorizes and due to testimony puts said person in jail?

Kinda scary ground.

Take this case for example, you think bribery and extortion were authorized behavior?

[RedPurdueYJ]

Originally Posted by ironpig70

Didn't say you were. But the GSA is taking a beating on this and I would make a guess we waste more in a couple months in Iraq/Afganistan but for some reason nobody cares or sees it.

I could name a presidential canidate that made a huge deal out of this, but media and the general populace thought he was an idiot.

For most, these issues only matter when their side isn't in the Whitehouse.

For the limited vocal few that actually give a shit about this country, these have and always will be issues we want addressed.

All that, and the fact that waging war and national defense are responsibilities of the government spelled out in COTUS.

.gov bashes in Vegas are not.

[RedPurdueYJ]

Originally Posted by ironpig70

And no I am not okay with a convicted felony not having guns. To me they did a crime, served their sentance and now are a citizen again. Way to many cases of bullshit cases.

We have an appeals process for a reason.

Since you believe so much in our prison systems to rehabilitate our criminals, I assume you wouldn't mind allowing child mollesters work at daycares and schools.